Hi Andrei, On 03/12/2008 11:48, "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be.
i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, not i.
I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming, since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time.
Sounds reasonable.
But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request.
I don't know whether there is a legal problem with the RIPE NCC signing a contract with itself and paying itself fees. If not, the only problem is the evaluation of this request. But as your proposal is for the minimum size, a /48, it doesn't seem controversial as the only option for a smaller portion of the resource pool is none at all. Regards, Leo